[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 11437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         NATURE CONSERVANCY AND PUTTING AMERICAN WORKERS FIRST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to briefly mention two very 
unrelated topics, but two things very important to the national scene. 
The front page of The Washington Post a few days ago had this headline: 
``Nonprofit Sells Scenic Acreage to Allies at a Loss. Buyers Gain Tax 
Breaks with Few Curbs on Land Use.'' And I would like for the Members 
to listen to the first few paragraphs of this story from the front page 
of The Washington Post. It says: ``On New York's Shelter Island, the 
Nature Conservancy 3 years ago bought an undeveloped, 10-acre tract 
overlooking the Mashomack Preserve, an oasis of hardwoods and tidal 
pools located just a stone's skip from the exclusive Hamptons. Cost to 
the charity: $2.1 million.'' That is what the Nature Conservancy 
purchased this land for.
  ``Seven weeks later it resold the land, with some development 
restrictions, to James Dougherty, former chairman of the charity's 
regional chapter, and his wife, Nancy, a trustee of the conservancy's 
preserve. Cost to the Doughertys: $500,000.
  ``The transaction follows a pattern seen in conservancy land deals 
across the Nation. Time and again the nonprofit has bought raw land and 
resold it at a loss to a trustee or supporter.''
  And what this article tells about, it tells about similar deals in 
Massachusetts, Kentucky, and other places across the country where the 
Nature Conservancy has bought land at a huge cost, $2.1 million in this 
case, and resold it to a member of their board or a strong supporter at 
a great loss, $500,000, for instance, in this $2.1 million deal, some 
of the most beautiful land in this Nation. People across this country 
need to know that the Nature Conservancy is doing these types of 
sweetheart deals for its board members and other favored people around 
the country.
  The other unrelated topic, Madam Speaker, another very important 
concern of mine is the fact that we keep on sending so many jobs to 
other countries. Just before the break, I spoke about another story 
from The Washington Post which told that one of the biggest exports we 
have in this country now is with the white collar or technical-type 
jobs, and it told that over the next decade we are going to lose at 
least 3 million or more white collar or technical jobs to places like 
India, China, and other countries.
  The gurus or the supporters of high tech told us for years that we 
did not need to worry about losing the factory jobs and the lower-wage 
jobs to other countries, that we would be a service economy or that we 
would have the more educated type of jobs. Now we are losing those at a 
very alarming pace. And when I graduated from college, people could get 
good jobs with bachelor's degrees. Now young people are being forced to 
go to graduate school and sometimes are not even finding jobs when they 
have master's degrees or Ph.D. degrees, and that is why we find so many 
people in graduate school or even with graduate degrees working as 
waiters and waitresses around the country. And if we do not stop this, 
we are going to have a real problem in this country.
  And Paul Craig Roberts, who is a nationally syndicated columnist, one 
of our most respected columnists and was a former assistant Secretary 
of the Treasury under President Reagan, a very conservative Republican, 
he wrote a few days ago, he said in the last 27 months: ``The U.S. 
economy has lost 2.6 million private sector jobs. Much of this loss is 
from the fall in profits and subsequent downsizing after the high-tech 
bust. Some lost jobs, however, are from a new development: America's 
export of high-wage jobs to low-wage countries.
  ``The collapse of the Soviet Union, China's `capitalist road,' and 
privatizations in formerly socialist economies made it reasonably safe 
for U.S. firms to locate capital and technology abroad to employ 
foreign labor to produce for the U.S. market. The main incentive to 
take production offshore is the availability of labor at wages far 
below the U.S. rate.
  ``Foreign labor can be hired at a fraction of U.S. cost, because the 
standard of living is much lower in China, India, and other Asian 
countries. These countries have a labor supply that is large relative 
to demand, making it possible to employ people at wages considerably 
less than the value of their contribution to output.''
  And it goes on in this column, Madam Speaker, and says: ``Thus the 
very process that helps U.S. firms become more profitable and price 
competitive worsens the U.S. trade deficit, lowers U.S. employment and 
GDP growth and puts pressure on the value of the dollar.
  ``The growing ability of U.S. employers to substitute cheaper foreign 
labor for U.S. labor is putting pressure on U.S. wages and salaries. On 
April 26 The New York Times reported that real earnings of those in the 
top 10 percent fell 1.4 percent over the last year. The real weekly pay 
for the median worker fell 1.5 percent.
  ``Another indication of the pressure on U.S. employment is the 
growing number of discouraged job seekers who have dropped out of the 
labor force. The 6 percent unemployment rate does not include those too 
discouraged to seek jobs.''
  If we do not start putting American workers first once again, Madam 
Speaker, we are going to have a real problem in this country.

                          ____________________